NO
Student Trustees: Should they have full voting rights on university boards?
WHAT ARE the responsibilities of representatives on higher education governing boards? These responsibilities, and who has the qualifications to meet them, should be the most significant factor in considering the appropriateness of student participation on college governing boards. I don't believe there should be specific positions designated for student representatives on these boards. My argument is based on philosophical grounds, legal opinions, and is presented primarily from a public community college viewpoint.

If a person is elected to a board position as a representative of a particular group, he or she must act as the voice of that group and act in that group's best interest. This is the way the students perceive their board membership. Indeed, in one college district the student senate impeached their nonvoting student member on the college board, removing him from the student senate, and sought the help of the administration and trustees in their objective of impeaching and removing him from his. position on the college board. The basis for their action was the individual's alleged failure to comply with requirements spelled out by the students. If a person is elected to a board position as an individual whose own talents are considered desirable for the position, he or she is chosen to act as part of that board and act in the board's best interest. "The board's best interest" might be defined as an overall concern for providing the best and most community college services to all district citizens within the framework of recognized and demonstrated need or desirability plus the ability to fund. A representative's first responsibility is to the board itself. By its very nature, a student representative to a governing board has loyalties seated in the student body rather than the college as a whole. Ideally, there should be no conflict between these positions, but, in reality, such conflicts exist. Students are the lifeblood of the educational process, but their specific interests may be too short term for the long-range decisions made by governing boards. A tuition hike may be inadvisable from the student's viewpoint, but it may be best from the school's standpoint.

Members of community college governing boards are, of course, responsible to a constituency. They are elected to their positions. If they make bad decisions, they are answerable to their electorate. But their electorate judges them on the basis of their product — the operation of the college. A student representative, on the other hand, is judged for his or her ability to represent the interest of the students. In other words, a student representative on the governing board is answerable to a specific interest group. If we begin to represent specific interest groups on our college governing boards, we must philosophically accept the need for equal representation. Are we to have representatives of the faculty, administration or staff? A bill was introduced in the California state legislature to require governing boards to include such representatives. The Illinois Community College Trustees Association states, "If representation on boards were realized for all legitimately interested groups in the community college district, the lay board governance concept for higher education that has worked so well for the past 400 years could be reduced to shambles."

The first student trustee of one public university said, ". . . for the student trustee to be effective, he must integrate with the rest of the board members and establish himself as a team member.... to appear strictly as a lobbyist for the students would be a mistake." Yet, the whole purpose of the law was to make sure the student viewpoint was heard. Not having a student representative in no way abridges the individual rights of students to run for election to the board, Indeed, to specify that only a student can run for this particular position on the board is discrimination against nonstudents.

But the philosophical problem of whether a student member's loyalty is to the board or to the student body is not the only one raised. There are legal aspects which must be considered. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education issued a report, "Governance of Higher Education: Six Priority Problems," in which they concluded that students should not serve on boards of trustees, in faculty senates, or have voting rights in departments. Illinois, however, enacted Public Act 78-822, which was signed into law by Gov. Dan Walker on September 12,1973. The law provides for nonvoting student representatives on the governing boards of public community colleges, colleges and universities in the state. The law specifically states that student representatives do not have voting rights and that they cannot be counted to establish a quorum. Beyond these limitations, however, the law is very vague.

The law does not address itself to the question of how student representatives are to be elected, whether they have advisory votes, whether they are allowed to make or second motions and whether or not they can attend executive sessions. There are differences of opinion concerning the legal and practical application of this law.

University and college board members should represent the school — not a particular interest group

At present all community college districts have student representatives. Most community college boards are allowing student representatives all rights except those specifically denied by the law. At the University of Illinois, student trustees are included in executive sessions and are allowed to make motions. The Board of Regents, the Board of Governors, Southern Illinois University, and the Illinois Board of Higher Education have similar positions. The Illinois Community College Board, however, requested its student representative not to make or second motions until the state attorney general released an opinion concerning the rights of student representatives.

On January 8, 1974, Atty. Gen. William J. Scott issued his opinion. He stated that in his opinion student members have the right to attend executive sessions and that they may make and second motions. He was not requested to give an opinion concerning the right of student representatives to have advisory votes. Legal opinions on these issues are, however, divided. The law offices of Chapman and Cutler stated, "It is our opinion that the nonvoting student member would not have the right to make a motion or second a motion." The Chapman and Cutler firm handles approximately 90 per cent of the school bonds sold in Illinois. Chapman and Cutler will not allow a college to sell bonds if the motion to do so was made or seconded by the student representative.

The law firm further states that they can make no opinion concerning the student representative attending executive sessions because "the Act is too ambiguous to permit that." William E. Feurer, attorney for the Illinois Board of Higher Education, advised that "there is no statutory limitation which prevents a nonvoting student member from making motions." He concludes that the board itself can determine what course of action to follow. Attorney Frank M. Hines writes, "It is my opinion that the only limitations which can be imposed on the student member are those which are set forth statutorily or those which are necessarily implicit herefrom." Concerning the advisory vote, the law firm of Maher and Imle maintains, "It . . . is our opinion that no selected student member is entitled to a vote on any measure, motion, or resolution of a board ... no matter how it may be labeled."

Perhaps the legal opinions on the whole law are best summed up by the opinion of the law office of Franke and Miller which states: "There is a general role of law that where legislation is so indefinite and ambiguous that it cannot be followed with any certainty, the legislation is void as being too vague. It is our opinion that this legislation clearly falls within the thrust of that legal principle and hence is invalid."

Aside from the obvious legal problems inherent in the legislation concerning student members of governing boards, there are other consequences. In most situations the students have responded to the trust placed in them if given an orientation to the trustee's responsibilities and need for confidentiality. I have no doubt there are students who can serve well on governing boards. Such students are already free to seek office via regular channels. They do not need, nor should they have special treatment of the kind now provided in Illinois' ambiguous law. Having at the board table an individual whose board membership is limited (i.e., "nonvoting") disrupts the relationship among board members and between board and administration. Additionally, student involvement in board discussion and action could be achieved in their capacity as an advisory group. This would allow students to retain flexibility without the danger of a "frozen" situation such as developed in the district referred to earlier where a student board member was "impeached."

Members of governing boards should be working to ensure that the decisions made are the best for the school. They should not be present merely to represent a particular interest group.ž

14 / February 1977 / Illinois Issues

By MARY McDONOUGH BRADY
Former executive director of the Association of Illinois Student Governments, Ms. Brady holds a master's degree in social science from the University of Illinois at Urbana.

YES
Student Trustees: Should they have full voting rights on university boards?

"STUDENT POWER" was a familiar slogan of the 1960's. During that stormy decade students did indeed emerge as powerful participants in institutional decisionmaking. In the early 1960's, radical student activists opened their campuses to controversial political speakers and made important contributions to the civil rights movement.

Alienated students dropped out in protest against society's many ills, which were generally blamed on the existing "establishment.".They developed a counterculture, complete with their own cooperative homes and businesses, underground publications and alternative educational offerings.

Both the activists and the alienated succeeded in frightening the establishment. Campus riots drove university presidents from their ivory towers and politicians from their seats of power. The new morality of the young dropouts led graying Americans to wonder what they had done wrong, and to explore ways of bringing their prodigal sons and daughters back into the fold. The establishment began responding to student demands.

Campus administrators sought input in areas of decisionmaking that had been off limits to students in the past. Eighteen-year-olds were given the right to vote. When American involvement in Vietnam ended, the campuses became strangely quiet. Time erased the divisions between the counterculture and the establishment. By the early 1970's, students had been successfully integrated into the mainstream.

At Illinois campuses, student leaders now administer miniature bureaucracies containing specialized departments run by relatively large staffs. They allocate millions of dollars in student fee money and they appoint members to virtually every campus committee of significance. They conduct aggressive voter registration drives among their constituents before major elections, and then campaign to get the students out to vote. They monitor legislative activity relating to higher education issues and use their resources to promote legislation favorable to student views. In short, students of the 1970's are continuing what students of the 1960's began — they're developing student power.

Four years ago, Illinois students joined in an intensive effort to win student seats on the governing boards that control public colleges and universities. They succeeded largely through the efforts of the Association of Illinois Student Governments (AISG), a fledgling statewide organization. On September 12, 1973, Gov. Dan Walker signed a law providing for student members on each of Illinois' 62 community college and university boards of trustees, the statewide Illinois Community College Board and the Illinois Board of Higher Education. The student members have all the responsibilities and powers of the other members, except the right to vote and to be counted for quorum purposes.

Now some administrators are getting worried again. They might be saying, "We wanted to involve students in the process, not let them take it over. Perhaps we were a bit too hasty."

Can students be stopped? Should they be stopped? The issue at the governance level is no longer whether or not students should be seated on the boards. Like it or not, the administrators are stuck with the law. Now student trustees are moving to grasp the full power of their positions — the right to vote.

The creation of student trustee positions has led to clear-cut benefits for the boards and the institutions, as well as for the students. Prior to enactment of the student trustees law, membership on Illinois' governing boards was limited to laypersons elected by district voters or appointed by the governor. Most of them had no special knowledge of the institutions they were designated to govern. Once a month they met and deliberated, relying heavily on staff recommendations and instinct to make their decisions. Student trustees bring a wealth of information along with their special perspectives. They are able to inform their boards about day-to-day concerns at their schools. They know how their institutions function at every important level, procedurally and informally. In a sense, each student trustee opens a doorway to his or her campus through which the far-removed laypersons can obtain a perspective.

Institutions benefit by having students on their governing boards too. The student trustees are the only board members who are not only able, but also expected to act as advocates for their campuses. Many governance issues do not have direct implications for students, but do have direct implications for individual institutions. The student trustees are articulate spokespersons for their own schools.

Students are often less than equals because they are not, as individuals, permanent members of the college or university community. Some faculty and administrators feel that student views are unimportant — that since they'll be gone in a few years they have no real stake in the institution's future. Students are justifiably resentful of this treatment. They consider themselves as not only the consumers of learning, but also as the end products of the educational

February 1977 / Illinois Issues / 15

plants. Apart from this conception of their role, many students are well aware that they and their counterparts contribute much talent and creative energy to their institutions.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of having students on governing boards — to students, institutions and the boards — lies in the improvement of communications between "the ruled and the ruling." Allowing student participation in the decisionmaking that affects their lives results in less misunderstanding, fewer conflicts and an overall reduction in alienation.

If students bring such a positive contribution to governing boards, why the controversy? Contrary to an opinion from Illinois' attorney general, some boards deny student trustees the rights to attend executive sessions and to make and second motions. A few boards have denied student trustees all the materials submitted to "regular" board members, and one board even (temporarily) refused to permit the student trustee to sit at its table! Some boards strenuously object to sharing their governing power with students because they believe students will not assume the responsibility associated with board membership; that they are not sufficiently competent to wisely execute board duties; or that they simply don't have a substantial interest in the full range of matters brought before the board. Some boards fear that the creation of a special student seat will pave the way for creation of faculty, nonacademic staff or other special seats. And, they argue, there is simply no need for providing students with an additional channel for participation on boards of trustees. Students may become appointed or elected members under the existing system.

The arguments that student board members might prove to be irresponsible, incompetent or disinterested are, of course, patronizing and otherwise without merit. Elected or appointed members could just as easily prove to be irresponsible or incompetent — and a few have been. It doesn't make any sense to maintain that students who live with their institutions on a daily basis will be less interested in its concerns than the laypersons who meet for a few hours once a month to fulfill their duties.

It doesn't follow that special seats should or will be established for faculty, nonacademic staff or others simply because student seats have been created. Students are the only nonemployees involved in their institutions' operations. The presence of representatives of

16 / February 1977 / Illinois Issues

While it is true that students could become appointed or elected to boards, few students attained trustee positions before the special seats were created. Only one student has been appointed to a board by a governor in Illinois' history; she was quickly replaced when she differed with him on a critical issue. A few students have been elected to community college boards. However, since the average trustee term is six years and community college academic terms are only two years, such student trustees do not represent the college's students for very long.

As fears of disruption by student trustees have been proved groundless, board resistance to them is weakening. Students themselves are untiring in their efforts to achieve full status. Many student trustees already have the right to cast advisory votes on their boards. While such votes do not count in the final tallies, most student trustees feel they can be more accountable to their constituencies by casting advisory votes. Some boards prohibit advisory votes on grounds that they would be illegal. They maintain that since the statute providing for student trustees specifies that they shall be nonvoting, a vote of any kind would violate the law.

Students are gaining ground on every front, but the real test of their strength will be in getting new legislation enacted to accord student trustees full voting rights. Administrators, boards of trustees and elected public officials are not going to be persuaded that students should have voting seats by virtue of brilliant arguments. Students will have to flex their muscles to get the job done.

In Illinois, there are over 500,000 public college and university students, nearly all of whom are potential voters. As one student trustee pointed out, "I am naturally not opposed to advisory voting 'privileges,' but our time could be better spent in a collective concentration of our efforts toward full recognition of student trustees on governing boards. I don't believe this is an impossible task, considering the coordinating abilities of the AISG and other statewide groups."

Students will have full voting rights on boards in the foreseeable future — not because they deserve it for behaving themselves, but because they have the power and the will to go after — and get — what's good for students.

February 1977 / Illinois Issues / 17